|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 48 post(s) |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
12
   |
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
I love FW. But locking up out of all stations in an enemy controlled system is purely ******* stupid. I can understand locking us out of milita stations (to prevent access to agents & lp stores), but otherwise I will either move to nearby non-milita space or leave milita all together.
It would encourage huge blobs to form and just "gank" a system in the 5-7 hours and thus deny the enemy from docking. IF I WANTED TO STORE MY **** IN A STATION I COULD LOSE I WOULD JUST GO JOINA SOV HOLDING ALLIANCE.
You can't even be locked out of stations in NPC null, why would you ever in bro sec? |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:sYnc Vir wrote:
No, the point is losing space when asleep cause it can be done in 5 hours. There is no fun to be had with that. However should it take longer then its something we can live with.
I absolutely agree 100%, this was something I was very firm with the developers about.  I can quote that for great justice, the CSM has been most helpful with discussing FW changes and bringing good points forward. We'll get started on a blog that explains most of the changes, expect it next week.
For the love of god rethink a total lockout of all stations.
The current proposed mechanic just encourages a huge blob "ganking" a system, to prevent an enemy that lives there from reshipping. Additionally it doesn't effect neutrals so it encourages current participants to just drop milita or use neutrals.
I'd even be in favor of locking opposing militas from militas stations and/or services (denying them from mission agents), but from all corporation stations is just silly.
Lets say one milita loses the vast majority of the systems. This could effectively kill one milita. While this might sound good for the "winning" side they might want to think, where their GF's were coming from.
I suppose we could start shooting a monument somewhere if it will make you hear how no one really supports this. |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 05:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lyrrashae wrote:radecz3k wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:
GÇóFueled Shield booster (Small/Medium/Large Ancillary Shield Booster), using Cap Boosters as charges
Since you have working shield booster for fuel make us happy, and rename it to "Covert cloak" and remove cloaky 24/7 afk campers from eve. I would say we need more nerf of covert cloak than shield boosters for fuel... This would remove advantage of people who arent next to pc over people who are really active. Every god-damned time any new additions are announced, there comes along one of these puling little victims crying about this, in... Every.
*******.
Thread.
Learn to secure your ******* space, or you ******* deserve to lose it.
Cloaks are already powered by fuel. They are fueled by tears of nullbears like you (radecz3k). If someone is cloaked they can't hurt you. That is until they uncloak and gank you. |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
@soundwave
@hans
The idea of locking people out of stations is the worst thing you could do to faction warfare. This will be a counter productive change as a side that has a lot less active participants won't gain an influx of new corps players as they are already numbered and cannot hold systems to even dock.
For FW to work it needs active players on each side. This mechanic will most likely just kill one side, and then the other side is left with nothing left to shoot, wt wise.
You've mentioned "wait and see". Why would I want to stick around in a feature that at least in my opinion ruins the sandbox.
I'll probably ubsub my accounts over this one feature that no one wants besides our supposed savior of a CSM Hans. |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:Good discussion, keep it coming. As CCP Soundwave stated we are actually locked in to continue working on FW after Inferno, so we will be monitoring the short term effects and have some long term plans that we didn't get time to do.
Keep up the good "work" on FW. Your work will kill FW. |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
@CCP
What are you guys going to do WHEN one side has all of their systems taken? Keep up the good work, and thinking through your new features to their inevitable conclusion. |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Maz3r Rakum wrote:@CCP
What are you guys going to do WHEN one side has all of their systems taken? Keep up the good work, and thinking through your new features to their inevitable conclusion. Economic pressures begin to encourage people to participate on the side of the losing faction. I believe that there should probalby be more incentives along this line than Data Cores, but that's the general idea.
Economic pressures? We are not talking about control over techmoons here. FW LP as it is right now isn't worth much, and all LP stores are not created equal.
What CCP needs to do is create mechanisms to promote a status quo per se, to encourage people to want to join a weaker side. |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:You have been denied access for the following reason: The Minmatar Republic denies access to Factional Warfare enemies. Either assist the Amarr Empire to capture this system or retire from the war.
How about I just un-subscribe my accounts?
|
|
|
| |
|